Friday, December 7, 2012

Fast-Talking Con Artist - Mr. Colion Noir

His first mistake was to address people who want to "take away the guns from America." No one wants to do that. This is a pro-gun trick, pretending we want to "ban guns," and arguing against that as if we really said it.

Then he goes into the "evil" segment. With certainty he says, "it will make its appearance at some point." This is the traditional fear tactic that gun nuts use to justify their behavior and gun makers use to sell more guns to them.

And no proper pro-gun rant would be complete without the "blaming the gun" schlock. We don't do that, in spite of the frequency of its repetition from the self-righteous gun lovers.

82 comments:

mikeb said... "His first mistake was to address people who want to "take away the guns from America." No one wants to do that."

Certainly you do. You suggest that the citizens of the US beg their government to let them have permission to own a gun. You want additional background checks, mental health screening and if a person holds a gun in the wrong hand, you want him to lose his gun rights. All of these thing will take a gun away from someone, someone that you deem is not worthy of possessing a firearm.

You suggest that we have gun laws like the UK, but in the UK, handguns and semi auto firearms are banned, thus, that to would be taking firearms from people.

While it may not be your intention to say "I want to take firearms from you", the gun laws that you want would take firearms from people.

Assault Weapons are full auto weapons which have been banned since 1986 and still are today. The left then changed the definition to ban more guns. Your ignorance about guns is no defense. Because what you call an assault weapon functions just like EVERY modern firearm made. Meaning one bullet per trigger pull. There is no difference between an AR15 and a hunting riffle. The only difference is an AR15 looks scary to people who are ignorant about guns.

"Certainly you do. You suggest that the citizens of the US beg their government to let them have permission to own a gun. You want additional background checks, mental health screening and if a person holds a gun in the wrong hand, you want him to lose his gun rights. All of these thing will take a gun away from someone, someone that you deem is not worthy of possessing a firearm."

The government of the United States, as well as the majority of the States of which it comprises, does restrict the possession of firearms among the civilian populace. For example felons, mental defectives, wife-beaters, and such are forbidden from possessing a firearm.

"You suggest that we have gun laws like the UK, but in the UK, handguns and semi auto firearms are banned, thus, that to would be taking firearms from people."

Wrong. Handguns are (for some bizarre reason) still allowable for the denizens on Northern Ireland (as well as some other obscure U.K. territories) to possess. Also mainland Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) still allow ordinary civilians to posses muzzle-loading, collector-grade, and antique handguns, as well as .22 rimfire semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic shotguns. Get your facts straight before you pollute the internet with more of your anti-government propaganda.

Well, la dee da, a Brit can own an antique handgun. I don't know that I believe you, but I'll pretend for the moment. Your comment only serves to support Bill's point. A person in Britain can only have a limited number of approved firearms and then only after going through a lot of red tape to get permission.

The US gun fanatics love to repeat the mistaken bullshit they've heard other US gun fanatics say. They think it sounds cool, but the fact is England has not removed all guns from civilian ownership. Far from it.

British civilians are allowed to own modern handguns which have unusual serial numbers, serve a "humane dispatch" purpose, where made before 1917, or are of artistic value. These "modern" handguns (those which use cartridges), not used for the dispatch of animals, are typically required to be maintained at a authorized shooting range. None of these apply if the holder has a Category 5 "Prohibited Firearms Certificate", in which case they may have almost anything they want (these are not common, and are often linked to a sporting event and restricted to only apply to one's competition pistol). Muzzle loading firearms are also exempt from the 1997 Firearms Act Amendment, which prohibits handguns.

Also, the 1989 Firearms Act Amendment only prohibited center-fire semiautomatic rifles, as well as modifying the requirements for holding shotgun and firearm certificates. There is no such ban on self loading rimfire or shotguns.

Bill Baldwin (or anyone else who is interested) may search the 1997 Firearms Act, which elevated handguns to prohibited status, and find that it is littered with numerous bizarre exceptions.

Mikeb, I don't know why your side insists on claiming that you don't want to ban guns. We're not stupid, despite what you tell yourselves. We can add up all the proposed restrictions, bans, tests, and so forth that you call for. We can see what that all leads to.

Mikeb, that's what you want. Looking at your proposals, I see that as your ultimate goal. If that's not the case, why do you keep adding on more and more restrictions and small bans that you want? Until I can trust you, I'll work under the assumption that you want to remove all guns.

"Certainly you do. You suggest that the citizens of the US beg their government to let them have permission to own a gun."

Actually Greggie, you and Billyboy are both stupid, or maybe he's just another gunzloonznation LIAR like you who continues to assert that people like mikeb302000, Laci The Dog, me and others who have said repeatedly that we do NOT want to ban, confiscate or melt down your precious penis substitutes have a hidden agenda. I keep telling you, Greggie, that's a FUCKING LIE, you're a FUCKING LIAR. I understand that it doesn't penetrate that thick skull of yours--that would be YOUR problem.

mikeb302000:

I don't usually follow links to people's websites, after seeing Mr. Noircolon's place I'm remembering why. "Gun Porn" section. Photos of "hot" Team Glock babe with juvenille patter. Ridiculous fauxtrage about women getting killed in domestic violence incidents because they are NOT armed. What a putz.

Democommie, you're the liar. It's that simple. I add up all the things said on here, and the only rational conclusion is that your side wants a ban. You may be too stupid to figure that out, but that's not my problem.

The difference between us is that when I call you a liar, I give evidence to support that claim. You're also a dirty old man and a whiny baby. Read any of your comments for evidence of that.

To my knowledge, no one in particular has advocated a policy which would ban handguns or most civilian firearms. Sure, they may argue that 10% or such gun owners are "unqualified", and that some new policy will solve a major crime problem, but that doesn't amount to calls for a ban. If you claim such, at least provide some evidence to support it. You claim that those you argue against advocate "tyranny", but you don't provide any specific examples. They may disagree with you (by advocating things like background checks, safe storage, and the lot) but that doesn't amount to "wanting to ban guns" or "advocating tyranny". Show me someone who does.

Anonymous, I have seen calls here from Mikeb and his fellow bloggers to ban what they refer to as "assault weapons." Mikeb wants to ban air guns that look too much like firearms.

Beyond those, he wants a may-issue policy not just for concealed carry licenses, but for a license to own a gun in the first place. He wants mental health exams and eye exams to own. He wants the police to inspect the home of every gun owner to match guns to registration forms three months after the gun is purchased and annually thereafter. He wants limits on the type and amount of ammunition that a person can buy. He wants limits on the magazine capacity. He has said that half of American gun owners are unqualified.

You tell me--what does all that add up to? A reasonable person can infer from all that a wish to ban guns outright. To be sure, those proposals wouldn't be a literal ban, but the burdens against legally owning a gun would be so great that few would bother. It would be an effective ban, as I've explained in the past.

When it comes to tyranny, look at E.N.'s comments. That's what I call advocacy for tyranny.

Anonymous, perhaps you're new here and haven't seen all of what I've just told you, but a little looking around will demonstrate what I mean. Search for "What do we mean by proper gun control?" as an example.

Thanks Anonymous, Greg knows he's exaggerating. The reason is obvious. My proposals are eminently reasonable and would make for a major improvement. Only be exaggerating them could he continue his ridiculous resistance.

No, Mikeb, I've shown you repeatedly how your proposals would infringe on my rights. You've never answered that. You've also said that what you propose will only affect law-abiding gun owners--in other words, the ones we don't need to worry about.

Imagine your resistance if writing blog articles were as restricted as you want guns to be. I wouldn't call that ridiculous.

I do believe that there is some exaggerating on the part of Greg/TS/Bill Baldwin, or the others. However they do have a point. Overburdening firearm owners could be used as a method of imposing an effective ban if implemented. However Mike (speaking only of him) has not (recently) argued for blatantly-restrictive measures as a method of banning firearms.

E.N. does seem to sympathize with tyrannical governments and accept the application of some vaguely tyrannical viewpoints, but (at least recently) has not argued for a widespread prohibition of firearm ownership. Also, he is not Mikeb. Mikeb is responsible for his own comments/posts and E.N. for his. Don't attribute the lunacy of other gun control advocates to Mikeb, whether they come from the rantings of Stalin's Ghost, from an organisation which he supports (Brady Campaign), or any other commentator who is reported to make deranged comments (such as Laci the Dog or another Anonymous when they apparently advocated killings) Mikeb, Demmocommie and Dog Gone are responsible for their own comments. If everyone understands this, then they just might reach a better outlook on personal responsibility.

Again thanks for responding, but don't resort to absolutist arguments. It only harms your own cause.

Ian, I tried that a while ago. I'm tired of being polite with these control freaks. My side will defeat them in detail and defeat them en masse. There's not enough difference in their views, pratically speaking, to matter.

The point of my comment wasn't to detract from the heathy culture of name-calling which exists here. I simply asked who supports a prohibitive firearms policy. Things like that scare Mikeb. While he advocates control, he also avoids radicalism. It appears E.N. is the only one here who advocates tyranny, but I cannot find anything on him calling for a ban on firearms. Much the same can be said for Laci, Dog Gone and Demmocommie (although Demmocommie's name and comments can be admittedly irritating at best, a blatant attempt to annoy conservatives and only serves to bastardize his own cause) since, while they do argue for restricted measures, those restrictive measures don't amount to a all-out ban.

One of the problems is the definition of "ban." When it suits the argument, the pro-gun folks use that word to conjure up total bans on all civilian guns and the associated federal confiscations that such an outlandish possibility would require.

Then when called on it, they say, oh but you want to ban assault weapons, right?

This is a bullshit argument. The banning of assault weapons and nuclear weapons for that matter, are restrictions placed on civilian gun ownership. The word ban should be reserved for that totally unrealistic situation which the word brings to mind when used for effect, total bans on all guns for civilians.

Mikeb, the problem here is trust. Given your stated goals and the statements of people on your side, we can't believe that you'd ever be satisfied until no one has a gun. I've told you this time and again, but you don't listen. We can't trust you. Until that changes, no deals are possible.

Come on MikeB. Lots of gun control proponents want to take all guns away from all citizens in the U.S.

Still other gun control proponents have the position that citizens can have guns as long as they are always inoperable, locked up in safes, and almost never used for any purpose much less personal defense.

And yet other gun control proponents take up the "Goldilocks" position where everything has to be "just right" ... that only certain citizens can have one or two of a few types of guns and use them in a few, limited types of ways with certain, limited types of ammunition.

Ian, I've tried. I tried to do exactly what you suggest. All I got from Laci and Dog Gone and Democommie were insults and dismissals. Mikeb pretended to be polite, but he'd get nasty on occasion. I do put rational argument into most of my comments still, but civility is long gone.

If you stop trying to ban ANY guns maybe people will stop calling you a "gun banner".

I don't believe that you want to take away every gun from every person. I do know that you want to take away some guns from everyone, and all guns from some people (say... half of America). It is fair to say that taking away guns is a major part of the agenda.

One has to appreciate the fact gunloons desperately do not wish to address the issue. That's why each and every gunloon debate is predicated upon the gunloon changing the premise of the argument.

Case in point--take TS's comment:

"If you stop trying to ban ANY guns maybe people will stop calling you a "gun banner"."

Of course, TS fully understands that folks of his own ilk, whose sympathies lie much closer to the NRA than mine are "gun banner(s)" by his definition. After all, even the vast majority of NRA members oppose unfettered access to fully-automatic weapons for the public at large.

But such is the logic of the gunloon.

If we remove 'guns' from the argument and apply TS's biazarre logic, we can brand just about anyone a "banner" of some sort. For example, we can call Doctors "drug banners" because they favor the ban of certain drugs that have been proven to be ineffective and/or dangerous such as thalidomide. Given the fact, Doctors prescribe tons of drugs every year, it's ludicrous to call them "drug banners."

I also assume you are ok with your current tax rate (or at the very least are ok with some level of tax on yourself). Therefore it is il-jade-logical of you to oppose any tax increase on your income bracket. 40, 50, 60 percent- whatever they want so long as they leave some money for you, you can't possibly oppose it.

For the record, I don't support our current NFS regulations, so I can call mike a "gun banner".

Greggy bleats pathetically: "Have you noticed yet that we had a revolution?"

Indeedy. But even professors from the most-backwoods, rural, fourth rate community college understand the War for Independence had nothing to do with firearms.

But Greggy's gunloon logic says that we fought--and eventually won--our revolution so we must reject every aspect of British policy and government. This, of course, means we have to completely gut our legal system because it is largely based on a British framework. Things like our financial system will also have to go away because it, too, was modelled on the UK's system. We should also reject science as a good deal is based on British science.

Goldilocks, you've brought your infantile babbling here again? My comment wasn't about guns. I was responding to E.N.'s idea that we're subjects, not citizens. That was one of the key points of the American Revolution, although I'm sure that you missed it, since your knowledge of the history comes only from Howard Zinn.

Prove that, you lying sack of shit. You are on record as saying, numerous times, that there is NO compromise possible between you and your brothers-in-teh Burnin' Stoopit and those who advocate ANY form of gun control.

"I add up all the things said on here, and the only rational conclusion is that your side wants a ban."

Nope, sorry, Greggie, it is NOT a rational conclusion. It is exactly the opposite. It is the conclusion that is arrived at by weak-minded teabaggist assholes like you. When presented with two sets of facts--one of which you don't like to admit exist--you simply ignore them. This is a mindset that ensured that Mittmoroni and Pauliewingnutz would get their asses kicked in the most recent election.

As has been asked of you and other gunzloonzmoronz here, often; just supply the laws on the books or proposed that will result in the confiscation of gunz (aside from those which the National Firearmes Act already lists as "illegal" to own). Do us all a favor and don't make any other comments until you've got that information.

Or, continue to do what you always do, attempt to deflect or re-define the argument, move the goalposts and simply tell fucking LIES.

Anonymous provides enough to be getting on with, but also read my response to another Anonymous above. Democommie, when all the signs point in a single direction, are you telling me that it's not rational to make a conclusion about where things are going just because there isn't a big red X at the end?

The fact that your side has failed to achieve much of anything since the Assault Weapons Ban doesn't mean that you don't want more.

I think that the recent trend in your direction is caused by Americans starting to mate with vegetables, producing a generation of adult children with all the intellect of a cucumber. There is no other explanation for such degenerate behavior.

Jade, if something is currently legal, and someone wants it banned- what else is there to call it?

How is my example not identical? Some drugs are legal, some aren't. There are people who want to make more drugs illegal (or more restricted), and there are people who want to make some drugs legal. If someone wants to ban everything but children's aspirin, what do you call them?

TS once again finds thinking hard: "the Brady Campaign as well as Mike et al were in full support of Chicago and DC's handgun bans."

Ummm,,,except for the fact handguns weren't banned in either place, TS's comment is accurate.

As I've sagely noted previously, handguns weren't banned. Of course, one could legitimately argue DC and Chicago made it difficult or onerous to obtain a handgun but that's quite different from claiming they were banned.

But of course, gunloons equate anything short of actually forcing firearms into people's hands as a "ban."

And how could a DC resident legally own a handgun after 1976? Join the police? They still won't own it.

Why don't you give us an example of something that is banned in this country. Banning one drug doesn't count by your standard because it doesn't ban all drugs. That is what you say about guns. Mike wants to ban what he calls "assault weapons". Yes? That is a ban, and I oppose that ban. He even calls it a "ban" when he is not being careful.

Oh, fuck off. This is the same type of discrimination as literacy tests and poll taxes. You wouldn't say that those things made it "more onerous" to vote, they were designed to keep out as many "undesirables" as possible. Period. It's underhanded, unconstitutional legislation that's designed to get rid of gun rights without technically banning them.

"Designed to keep out undesirables," exactly. That's what gun control laws are really all about. Too bad so many of you so-called lawful gun owners are really unfit to own guns in the first place. No wonder you get so upset.

"How is my example not identical? Some drugs are legal, some aren't. "

It's not identical because thalidomide--which was legally prescribed to pregnant women to relieve morning sickness--was later banned because it had the rather nasty effect of inducing horrific birth defects. Similarly, there was--a few years back--a very popular arthritis drug which was later found to cause heart failure.

As a result, these drugs were "banned" from the market. Thus, doctors are "drug banners."

The meedical field is rife with such stories. You can find surgical procedures that are banned by the medical community because they were ineffective and/or caused greater injury to patients. I guess doctors are surgery "banners."

I oppose the bans that you guys say you want. It doesn't matter whether you want to ban every single gun in civilian hands if I already oppose what you want to ban. I am not alone in this.

But why don't you answer my question about birth control pills. What would you say to a republican legislator who wants to ban one specific popular type of birth control? Maybe then you understand how silly your argument is.

Doctors write prescriptions. They don't write laws. They can stop writing prescriptions if they deem a product is not working as intended or proves to have adverse harmful effects. They can also lobby legislators for legal bans, or they can enact bans internal to their community, but outside the scope of the law. But the word "ban" still applied. If you agree with the doctors the word still applies.

If I wanted mike to ban "assault weapons" then I would proudly call him a "gun banner". What doesn't change is that he wants to ban some guns.

Jadegold there is a ban in name and intent which few have outright asked for and there is a ban in effect which very very many are advocating. Many of these may issue laws, some of the background checks desired and the fact that political appointees will be making the decisions will make it so difficult and complicated to obtain a firearm that it will be an effective ban, though not one in name. additionally there is the issue of human adaptation/ the slippery slope. There is no line in the sand or what I call the drop dead point with most of the gun control advocates I have spoken with. Common sense as your side likes to call it means to many things to too many people. And unless there is an agreed too stooping point with what one side is willing to ask corresponding to what the other side is willing to give it makes compromise nearly impossible. And there are many, even on this site who are calling for a total ban of civilian firearm ownership. The biggest problem we run into with the gun control lobby is that they like to give life and conscious thought to inanimate objects. Firearms are the only tool that gets blamed for what the user chooses to do with it. MikeZ

"What would you say to a republican legislator who wants to ban one specific popular type of birth control? Maybe then you understand how silly your argument is."

You're not serious with this stupid comment, are you? Reublican legislators have been working on banning all forms of birth control since it became available. They've been working to overturn Roe v Wade since the SCotUS ruled in the case.

I would say to them now and in the future, "Get a fucking life and start working on things that benefit the living and not your fantasy snowflake demographic and your imaginary skydaddy."

The way adults negotiate for a compromise:

First speaker:

"Oh, hey, listen, I just want to say that I think it would be reasonable if we had some sort of structure of regulation around subject "X"."

Second speaker:

"Well, that sounds fair and reasonable. Let's sit down and work something out.".

Democommie, you made my point exactly. When arguing with you guys I like to put it in terms of something that we can both agree on. I don't want to see any bans on birth control. In fact I want to see restrictions eased by having many common forms of "the pill" available over the counter.

So what do you say to those republicans? You fly off the handle and say "get a fucking life". You don't say "that sounds reasonable, let's sit down and reach a compromise."

Now what did you think I meant when I asked that question which you called "stupid"? Read it again.

A ban on birth control as well as all other forms of contraception may be constitutional, if the intended purpose is to increase the future population for military and economic purposes. The U.S. may find such a policy necessary in order to pay down the debt, provide for the retirement of the current generations, as well as ensure a healthy supply of "cannon fodder" (soldiers) in order to guarantee national security. Such a prohibition would only be unconstitutional if there is no good and compelling reason for such, such as a prohibition based on petty moralities.

Author has no substantive argument. You say non one wants to take guns away from America? You are delusional. You say Colion uses the "blame the gun" thing? Well, that's all I hear is that if this gun and that clip were illegal, then that evil act would not have happened. If evil never happens, then our guns will just be used for target practice. But, if it does, and history shows it is likely some day, the guns will be loaded to defend ourselves. But all that aside, what kind of person would want to live in a violent world and ignore tools that could be used to protect themselves and their families? Furthermore, what gives one person a right to say another should not be allowed to have that kind of protection?

jw, thanks for stopping by with a comment. I think what you're leaving out of the simplistic view you just painted is that many of the mass shootings are done by "good guys" with guns. Much of the every-day violence also, good guys turned bad.

Another thing you may not be considering is that almost all the guns used in crime come from lawful gun owners. It's not like heroin and cocaine that starts out illegal. Guns start out the legal property of people like you. From there they flow into the criminal world. That's why we need better gun control laws.

The fact that the state of New York effectively banned all handguns that are not revolvers (there are very few handguns that are equipped with magazines ≤ 7 rounds) demonstrates that there are those in politics that are attempting to disarm the public.

Why not do both, man? Why do you guys want to do the one thing without the other? I'll answer that. Because you're selfish people who don't give a fuck about others especially if doing so would inconvenience you and interfere with you relationship with your precious fetish items.

I'll answer that correctly. Because guns were easier to get, with less restrictions on the types available, 50 years ago. What happened? Societal decay.

What would Feinstein say if you could order a military 20mm anti-tank cannon? To your doorstep. With no background check and no obligation to provide your real name.

In the 60s that was possible, so why do we have more gun violence now? Because selfish assholes like you, obsessed with high-fiving themselves over raising breast cancer awareness or giving money to African orphans, refuse to believe that people should have individual liberties.

How can anyone claim "they" are not trying to remove all guns? Every state has a proposed bill to BAN ALL FIREARMS!I'm so sick of gun control people saying they don't want to ban all guns when in fact democratic legislators, regularly, introduce bills to ban all civilian ownership. It's in the news everyday!

First it was full-autos > and when that didn't help anythingIt's gonna be semi-automatic assault weapons > and when that doesn't help anythingBan High caliber deadly weapons > and when that doesn't help anythingBan sniper riflesAnd then finally anything that's not a airpistol. I mean why would you ever need something that shoots live ammunition you terrorist extremist school shooters!

That is the anti-gun position. Reactionary and progressively destructive.

First it was banning fully automatic military grade machine guns > when that didn't do anythingBan semi-automatic assault weapons > and when that doesn't do anythingBan high caliber deadly weapons > and when that doesn't do anythingBan dangerously concealable hadguns > and when that makes things worseBan sniper rifles > and when that pisses whatever gun owns you have leftImpose tons of unreasonable restrictions under the guise of keeping them safe and make it so that its as unappealing as possible to get into guns but not make it illegal so that way no one will get into it and if they complain they're unreasonable because of how fair you are to even let them have guns and that they want to arm criminals and mass murderers.